Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Hellonasty

An Unknown Plant

Question

Any ideas as to what this is ? I was given it by a well known cactus enthusiast in Australia and It was labelled Neoraimondia Gigantea. I does not fit the appearance and features of that plant, but what is it ?

Love to hear some opinions.

HN

5518419847_d65d44e472_b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Nice plant, hellonasty. Looks clearly like a Trich to me. Maybe cuzcoensis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'm with EG, though maybe a hybrid with cuzo in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Looks like it has some Bridge and cuzco traits, I am really stumped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Looks like another Knize special to me. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I agree it certainly looks like a Tricho. The longer, thicker and more yellow spines at the top confuse me, this trait is more pronounced than what the picture shows and as the plant grows it is increasing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi Hellonasty, well i´ve seen many diffrent types of cuzcoensis. SS took pictures of at least 5 or 6 diffrent varieties in Peru a few years ago and some of them had such long spines too. The species is indeed very variabel. Im pretty sure this is a Cuzcoensis...definately one of the nicest i´ve seen. How long do you have it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Im sure ive got one that looks the same, ill check the collection tomorrow and post a pic.... :scratchhead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Definitely not Neoraimondia Gigantea, but neat plant for sure. Looks something like what I might imagine a proper T. pachanoi x T. cuzcoensis to look like.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I disagree in regard to it being a cuzco type, in my opinion it is not cuzcoensis but appears to be a typical seedling of puquiensis, a close ally of the cuzco,

as a seedling it tends to be a bit thinner than peruvianus and pachanoi, more bridgesii like in how thick it is

The spines also tend to be longer, do not have the swelling at the base and they have a less wavey profile, all things that make them distinct from cuzco. Also, and it is only starting to show, as they mature they get puffy areoles that stick out more than most other san pedro types.

Scientific study also indicates that the puqiensis is chemically distinct from the cuzcoensis as well.

As it ages it will mature and change some of the features it has, older mature puquensis look a bit different.

When B&R comment about the closeness of bridgesii and peruvanus in appearance I believe this is the plant they were calling peruvianus at the time.

Edited by Archaea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi Archaea, please edit out the part about the taste and the potency.

But you may be right about puquiensis. At least some parts of Backebergs description match. Puquiensis has 8-10 Ribs but im sure it could still grow some more. Color is kinda right...backeberg gave a buish green as tone. But the picture i saw on Trouts website and the one Rauh took back then seem to look diffrent. According to Backeberg, Trichocereus Puquiensis has no V-notches and the one on the picture clearly has. Also, Puquiensis has more ribs than cuzcoensis. Is Puquiensis still a valid name or did they merge it somewhere?

Nasty, does the long middle spine have a swollen base? I think the shape of the rips would rather tend to Cuzcoensis but it could as well be a Puquiensis. Long middle spines like this one are definately an indicator. bye Eg

Edited by Evil Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'm not sure if it's T. puquiensis or not, but here's one from the Berkeley Botanical for comparison...and then my own that I got from Bob R. with KK1689 attached.

2672693411_0317a12ab6_b.jpg

4823102357_30b850669b_o.jpg

I'd be a little cautious about determining it to be T. puquiensis without there being some history of adequately ID'ed T. puquiensis in Australia.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
SS took pictures of at least 5 or 6 diffrent varieties in Peru a few years ago and some of them had such long spines too.

Sure did. Here's my picture from the Sacred Valley @ Pisac when I was there with SS/BPC in 2010.

gallery_3864_277_1122503.jpg

Edited by Teotzlcoatl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Yeah, very nice plant Teotz. I didnt know you were with them in 2010. Do you still got some seeds from the trip? Thats exactly the kind of stuff im interested in so if you still have some Trich seed you collected there, please let me know. bye Eg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I don't have them but other members of the expedition team do, want me to get in touch with them? SS might even still have some seed for sale...

I didnt know you were with them in 2010.

Yeah, I wrote about it here - ....somewhere I can't find the thread!

EG tell me what you want me to collect or check out while I'm in South America next year in my thread here - http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28967&st=0&p=318830&hl=+andean%20+expedition&fromsearch=1entry318830

Edited by Teotzlcoatl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I have never hear of T.Pquiensis in Australia as yet however the original owner is a bit of a pioneer so it could be from imported seed. This plant is most definitely seed grown and looks about 2 - 3years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I will be the first to admit that I don't think much of the work of Backeberg in regard to this genus. I believe in many cases he published new names for previously existing plants and was as a splitter unable to recognize that a species can display diversity in their populations.

I also do not consider botanical specimens or collectors specimens like those shown above to be definitive or even indicative, sometimes such specimens are rather distinct from the botanical descriptions, often because they can originate as seed and the ancestry cannot be verified and in some cases appears to be hybrid. I feel that taking collectors and botanical gardens specimens as authoritative and definitive is one of the largest sources of confusion regarding these plants.

I would like to point out the Bob R. Plant looks nothing like other puq and fails to meet the published description of puq.

What Teotz shows appears to me to be a typical cuzcoensis, I have seen some variation in cuzcoensis forms, but never have I seen one with spines lacking the swollen bases.

Regarding why I feel it is puquiensis;

Some distinctions are the number of spines, both centrals and radials. likewise rib counts, which in regards to seedlings are totally distinct when compared to mature specimens, for example scop seedlings often have more ribs than their adult forms and some other forms like pachanoid seedlings often have fewer ribs that their adult forms. Published descriptions are invalid when applied to immature plants.

The spines are different than Cuzco, there tends to be one dominant central and it can get much longer on the puq than the Cuzco and this spine is very needle like and lacks the swollen base of the cuzcoensis. also the radial spines on the puq tend to be fewer in number than with the Cuzco.

I posted about identical plants previously actually, how they look much like a Cuzco but are not.

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27743&st=0&p=301588&hl=cuzco&fromsearch=1entry301588

The plant shown above appears to be a seedling, not an adult. I believe that it was likely introduced as mislabeled seed, most likely Knize sourced.

The plant might be an example of the Cuzco allied Tarma (KK427) but I feel it is not a hybrid and it is not cuzcoensis. This is my amateur opinion.

For me puq, cuszco and Tarma material are allied and closer to one another in may ways than to any other form like peruvanus, pach or bridgesii.

Edited by Archaea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

SAB has sold T. puquiensis in the past. I had one or two at one point, but I think interbeing has them now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
What Teotz shows appears to me to be a typical cuzcoensis, I have seen some variation in cuzcoensis forms, but never have I seen one with spines lacking the swollen bases.

We were pretty damn near Cusco (in Pisac). I'd say this is the "type" T. cuscoensis form that I photographed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I wouldn't rule out Bob Ressler's plant from the BBG as being T. puquiensis so easily, nor rule in so easily Hellonasty's plant as being one.

Here's my BR BBG T. puquiensis showing it's spination a bit better. I'm fairly convinced that my plant, regardless of its relative immaturity, matches those of Peru.

6084195866_f258f2ae36_o.jpg

Does anyone have photos of the Australian T. puquiensis that tripsis mentioned?

~Michael~

Edited by M S Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I have to admit that last photo does look like puq to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Well I had never even heard of T.Puq until I started this thread so I'm certainly not qualified to make a decision. I will grow it out and post another pic in a year or so :)

Edited by Hellonasty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Pretty old thread revival I know but I was googling T. puquienses this morning and taking some pictures of my T. puq bought from SAB approximately 2 and half years ago as a little seedling labeled T. peruvianus var. puquiensis KK1689.

post-9261-0-71616900-1400385404_thumb.jp

Mine looks quite different to other show in this thread with the central spine being much thicker at the base and some very clearly defined V notches but I guess with KK plants you can never be too sure.

Edited by lhb2444

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×